Asian Arrow Points

[jack farrell]

Peter D; I am so much enjoying your information about the designation of different arrows/points. To begin with, what do you think the chisel points and the spatulate points of the Mongol era were specific for?

Did you/others see the book by Yidegang about the distinctions between Chinese arrows? I am also grateful to Redhawk for the identification of Siberian points.

Anyone chime in. Jack.

[Peter Dekker]

Hi Jack,

I've been wondering about these chisel points myself as well, I got quite a number in my collection of many different shapes and sizes.

Judging from what I know at this point, I am assuming they belonged to hunting arrowheads. I know for sure that at least for the Manchus they served this purpose. Knowing that they kept in mind the underground of the game they were hunting and the durability of their arrows, a chisel point is sharp but more durable than a pointy arrowhead on hard terrain, something that may have been a consideration.

My 1759 regulations (am waiting to receive books on regulations for 1792 and 1808 as well) mention three arrows with chisel-shaped arrowheads. These are slightly different than those normally encountered in that the edge is either completely level, or concave instead of convex. These were used, among others, to shoot stag, deer, fox, roe deer and dogs. The one with the concave edge is also used for hunting animals.

The text also states 左右莫御 meaning something like "left right not for Imperial (use?)" But I can't figure out the exact meaning. The other two arrows have similarly obscure parts in their descriptions.

I am not aware of Yi Degang's book but it sounds interesting.

-Peter

[Orda Khan]

How wide was thid concave head? I am thinking it would be useful when hunting fowl?

[Peter Dekker]

The concave "chisel" arrowhead was 1.5 cun long and I believe 1.3 cun wide. Assuming the common conversion of 1 cun = 32 mm in the 18th cent. system, it would be 4.8 cm long and 4.16 cm wide. This one is specified to be able to shoot "animals" but no specifics are given.

There is another "Swallow tail broadhead arrow" in the regulatiions with a V-shaped arrowhead that is often thought to be a fowl hunting arrow as well. Again, the regulations specify something different than what is commonly assumed: The swallowtail arrowhead is meant to shoot ground dwelling animals by the regulations formulated under the Qianlong emperor. (Who was a very diligent hunter and upholder of Manchu culture himself.)

I think we can fairly safely assume that these arrow purposes are about as close as we can get to what they were designed for. I don't expect any more credible text turning up than the 1759 Huangchao Liqi Tushi I got these from. It was devised under close supervision of one of the most legendary Manchu emperors, the Qianlong emperor, one who still practised the traditional hunting methods he learned from his grandfather the Kangxi emperor.

I recall a painting of the Yongzheng emperor (Qianlong's father & Kangxi's son) hunting fowl. When I stumble upon it again, or get to translate regulations concerning specific fowling arrows, I will let you know.

-Peter

[jack farrell]

Peter; I have three collections in which these chisel points occur. One is from the Penjayuan market and appear Yuan(13th century) Another is Liao (10-12th centuries) from inner Mongolia and the other is from Russia. The Russian collection is from a local museum at the site of a huge Tartar battle site. In all three groups, chisel to spatulate points make up about one quarter of the points. So I can only assume that these are meant for warfare.

If I had to guess I would say that they were used at close range, so called "sailing", being caught on the wind, must have been a problem if they were used at distance, at least for the really big ones.

The advantage over pointed arrows would be that the point would tend to fall out of a wound more easily with a great gush of blood. This would disable the opponent more quickly. Some are no wider than a slotted screwdriver blade.

How is it that the emperor specified arrow points? For royal hunts? To whom did the rules apply?

[Stephen Selby]

The text also states 左右莫御 meaning something like "left right not for Imperial (use?)" But I can't figure out the exact meaning. The other two arrows have similarly obscure parts in their descriptions.

It would help to see more context; but the meaning of this comment may be '(Lesser officials) of the left and right may not accompany the Court (in using this type of equipment.)"

S

[Peter Dekker]

So I can only assume that these are meant for warfare.

The main challenge of an army in these days was not to face the enemy but to sustain itself while on the move.* In this context, it is imaginable that hunting arrows were carried on military campaigns in considerable quantities.

Assuming they were in fact military, your point is a good one. A friend of mine, Philip Tom, who is an expert on edged weapons once told me "A narrow chisel point is surprisingly effective. It provides more shock than a simple awl- or needle tip. The bayonets used by the Russians from the latter 19th cent. thru WW II had no edges, they were basically thick, fluted spikes but they had chisel tips."

It seems the effectiveness of the chisel had not been forgotten in this region, then!

In any case, the Manchus and their Chinese armies did not use the chisel for warfare or at least seized this practice by the 18th cent. as the regulations are clear about which arrow is military and which not, and the chisels are not among the military ones by 1759. Arrowhead designs usually differed depending on the armor of the target, so perhaps changes in armor made them obsolete for this use in Asia at some point.

How is it that the emperor specified arrow points? For royal hunts?

The early Manchu emperors were involved in military affairs and the hunt on a remarkable level, most notably the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors. The Qianlong emperor even (re)designed a number of special weapons for certain campaigns, but as you say many of the hunting arrows were for the Royal Hunts and were probably derived from older Jurchen designs.

To whom did the rules apply?

The regulations mention everything from simple brass mounted soldier's sabers to the emperors own "Heaven series Nr. 1" saber, to tents and musical instruments, flags, uniforms, practically anything used by the royal court and its armies. The regulations apparently applied to whoever served the court: from civil officials to princes, down to the lowest soldiers. Actual antiques do show that they did not always adhered to the regulations very closely, perhaps the court's power was not as strong when one got further away from the capital.

I am waiting to receive another (slightly later) text that covers regulations for all 16 provinces. I wonder whether there are any significant differences in weapons and protection. There probably are due to different threats and climate conditions. For example, rattan armor was favored in the south probably because regular armor was too hot there. In the West they needed mail-piercing arrows, and rattan piercing arrows for use against the rebellious Southwestern tribes.

Stephen,
Thanks for the translation! The four characters are separate from the rest of the description. They appear after a sentence dealing with the wrapping around the nock of the arrow. It then names its purpose: 射兽 (for shooting animals) and then the four characters 左右莫御.

*See sources such as Peter C. Perdue's "China Marches West" and Dzengseo's diary, the translation of the diary of a 17th cent. Manchu soldier.

[Bede]

Narrow chisel pointed arrows were recommend by Taybugha for shooting against armour (a type of brigandine is mentioned). However, they do not look much like the east Asian ones. There are early Persian miniature paintings showing the wider tips used in hunting.

There is a late Byzantine painting quoted in my article on closed quivers which shows wide chisel-shaped arrow heads as well as broad heads. The saints depicted were in armour.

In the Secret History, Chinggis Khan's regulations on the army marching prohibit hunting in the ranks, but that probably meant only that hunting was restricted unless it was part of a military command and officially sanctioned.

The chisel points on some bayonets were used as screw drivers.

[jack farrell]

Mc Leod, Tut's self bows, plate IV, shows an arrow with a triangular glass point with a convex cutting edge. This was one of a set of 20 fletched cane forshafted arrows.

P 59" this is a characteristically Egyptian shape of arrowhead...and is well represented in agate, flint, or quartz, in all three comparative collections (18 from the tomb of Hemaka), 84 from Nag el Deir; 19 from the tomb of Maiherperi"...

The king Tut group is 1300 BC and he had bronze pointed arrows so he preferred these spatulate points in glass.

The second collection of 18 is from app. 2800 BC, tomb of a pharoe and would predate the bronze age. Since the arrows were a set it may be concluded that this type was not a prototype and so was already established as a point type in the early third millennium BC.

The last 19 were in the tomb of a royal fan carrier. This last group would also be bronze age so therefore it appears that the Egyptians preferred stone or glass for this type point, and like all their other arrows, tended to come in sets.

Egyptian kings both bow hunted and practiced archery for warfare.

These spatulate (wide chisel) points are also called tranchet, I think. -j-

[Peter Dekker]

Interesting, I had never heard of glass arrowheads before!

A disadvantage of glass would be its brittleness, but with that comes the major advantage of it being able to take and hold a much sharper edge than the bronze arrowheads of the time.

The few Qing arrowheads I've had polished show a lamellar structure like the other edged weapons of the Qing: A hardened high carbon edge in cheecks of softer folded iron / steel layers. This would produce an edge many times sharper than any bronze object, nearly as sharp as glass could be, while overcoming the problems of brittleness.

There are references to the sharpness of these chisel like Manchu arrows, such as: "Nothing can protect from it" and "So sharp it will stand out in the ground" found in the texts describing them.

It seems to me then, that a high degree of sharpness was required for these to work. I think we would need to do some proper field testing with such points to find out what exactly they could penetrate and what not.

-Peter

[Bede]

Jack,
You are right. these small heads were called petit-tranchet in the archaeological literature. They were more often made of flint or agate, but the Egyptians had an early glass industry. American Indians made excellent arrow heads from glass and Australian Aboriginals made beautiful spear heads from it.

The petit-tranchet heads were more like equilateral triangles rather than chisel shaped. They were obviously intended to cause large wounds.

Peter, I have often thought about testing the chisel shaped heads but did not know any metal smiths to make them for me. Accurate cross sections and metal quality would be essential for testing.

[Peter Dekker]

Peter, I have often thought about testing the chisel shaped heads but did not know any metal smiths to make them for me. Accurate cross sections and metal quality would be essential for testing.

From the sword business I know a few who can do it but it is probably going to be rather costly. We would first need to test the hardness of one and replicate this. If the hardness is around 55 HRC we can get away using modern monosteel, but if it is harder (around 60 or above) an inserted edge would be the way to go. These are a lot of work.

Once my 80# Manchu bow is done I do want to make accurate replicas of such arrows for field testing. By that time, I will probably also have some heads forged for testing. But it is going to take almost three years before that bow is finished.

-Peter

[jack farrell]

WEll, Peter brings up something more interesting than glass points and that is the composition of metal points. Sandwiching tool steel between two layers of mild steel is a superior technique for tool making. In an attempt to conserve on high quality steel by supporting it in a body of inferior material, the ancients discovered a technique whereby the main object would bend without breaking and straighten again to the original position, but the cutting edge, sharp and brittle, would be supported by softer steel.

The trade off is labor. This is recognized as premium technique. Swedish tools used to be made this way, maybe still are. One can buy some Japanese tools made like this, called San Mai, three layers.

Only a good blacksmith can forge weld steel. In the days of the Mongols one can assume that forging was a serious trade with apprenticeship. The sheer quantity of invasion era points suggests organized production methods, trade and technique.

Any other information or testing of old points would be welcome. -j-

[Peter Dekker]

The delightful subject of old steel and their constructions!

Sandwiching tool steel between two layers of mild steel is a superior technique for tool making.

Indeed, and it seems that at some point any steel object that was to hold an edge made in China was made in this way. Not only swords and chisels, I even have a pair of Chinese scissors with an inserted hardened edge. The construction is usually associated with Japan because of their famous swords. What few realise is that these techniques were developed in China hundreds of years before the Japanese started to copy it. Steel swords with a sanmei (sanmai in Japanese) construction appear in the tomb of Qin Shihuangdi (214 B.C.) already. Sanmei is one of a number of constructions used, where a hard layer is sandwiched between two softer layers. Single edged weapons are also often made with a qiangang construction where the edge only comes out the milder body steel on one side. Old chisel blades from China and Japan usually have the hard steel exposed on a large part of the flat side, both sides, and the edge. For arrowheads, sanmei would be the way to go.

The Japanese copied the Chinese method of steel construction in the 6th or 7th century, and kept quite close to the design and aesthetics of this era up to today. The Chinese edged weapons evolved much more than that over time, and were influenced strongly by Islamic arms brought to China by the Mongols while maintaining a very own character as well. The techniques of heat-treating also changed, where the Japanese held on to the clay-technique developed by the Chinese in the Tang dynasty while the Chinese themselves started to use complete hardening and local annealing after the late Tang dynasty. The elevated status of the Japanese sword now is largely a result of the Japanese constant preserving and nurturing of their old crafts, combined with the wealth of information available on the subject, and partly fueled by popular culture. The details of the Chinese sword-makers art are not served to us on a platter but largely lie hidden beneath old rusty surfaces, with only few publications about them available.*

Only a good blacksmith can forge weld steel. In the days of the Mongols one can assume that forging was a serious trade with apprenticeship. The sheer quantity of invasion era points suggests organized production methods, trade and technique.

It is indeed tempting to assume that the techniques used in China were also known in its immediate surrounding areas, or may have very well gotten there by trade. I do know that the Mongols had huge iron smelting facilities in their homelands during their golden age. I do not know how exactly the iron was processed into arms and arrowheads, but "the Chinese way" is certainly plausible for these heads as well.

A Chinese officer's saber (peidao) of the 18th century. Qiangang construction.


A Chinese / Manchu hunting arrowhead of the "pi" type. 19th century. Laminated construction of alternating layers of hard and soft steel.




*See Philip M.W. Tom - Some notable sabers of the Qing dynasty in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Arts in New York. Metropolitan Museum of Arts Journal 36, 2001. More publications from him are in the pipeline.

See also: http://www.grtc.org/articles/art_of_chinese_sword.html

-Peter

[yokhua]

Actually there are still many antique arrow heads date back to more then 1,000 years to the 1800's you can find in many China antique shops. Yet, these are not the items that draw much attenation to the general antique collectors. It works like this, in the area of inner Mongolia where the battlefield of generation after generations, a special and expensive vegetable precious by Chinese grow there, under the thin layer of surface soil. Many locals will go and harvist the vegetable (called "hair vegetable"), and found antique arrow heads from time to time. Some antique dealers will trad with those people, one pack of cigarette per arrow head, for speciall kind (such as whisling ) maybe 3 or 4 packs of cigarette for one... Amazing Ha!